search_garmin_docs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only search operation but does not disclose result format, pagination behavior, or any prerequisites (e.g., API key). The description is minimal and fails to add behavioral context beyond the obvious search action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary and contributes to clarity. No redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks information about return format, result structure, or any limitations. Given the absence of an output schema, additional context would be valuable for the agent to know what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions already covering both parameters. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters but aligns with the category enum by mentioning 'modules, classes, or functions'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('search'), the resource ('Garmin Connect IQ API documentation'), and the scope ('modules, classes, or functions'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools that target specific items (e.g., get_class_details) or different resources (e.g., search_device_reference).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools (e.g., get_class_details, get_module_details), an agent would benefit from knowing that for specific module or class lookups, those tools are more appropriate. The description does not establish any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.